# Naked Science Forum

## On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: trevorjohnson32 on 30/01/2019 00:10:21

Title: time dilation in artificial gravity
Post by: trevorjohnson32 on 30/01/2019 00:10:21
How does time dilation exist for the guy on the meteor moving at a constant speed, like in a gravity field, but in an artificial gravity field like the one for the guy on the accelerating meteor, time dilation is changing?
Title: Re: time dilation in artificial gravity
Post by: Halc on 30/01/2019 01:58:34
How does time dilation exist for the guy on the meteor moving at a constant speed, like in a gravity field, but in an artificial gravity field like the one for the guy on the accelerating meteor, time dilation is changing?
The one on the meteor moving at constant speed experiences near free-fall.  I say near because the meteor is not massless and exerts at least a little gravity.
The one standing on the accelerating meteor experiences much the same as you and I on Earth (assuming it is accelerating at 1g).  This is an accelerated reference frame.  Neither notices any dilation of clocks or objects in their possession, but either may notice dilation of clocks not in equivalent reference frames.
Both measure the local speed of light as c.
Title: Re: time dilation in artificial gravity
Post by: mad aetherist on 30/01/2019 11:33:40
How does time dilation exist for the guy on the meteor moving at a constant speed, like in a gravity field, but in an artificial gravity field like the one for the guy on the accelerating meteor, time dilation is changing?
(i) U cant fall at a constant speed in a gravity field (unless the field is zero).  (ii) No guy on any accelerating meteor is ever in an artificial gravity field (unless praps if using rocket power)(&/or unless the meteor is spinning). (iii) The question needs editing. (iv) But i will offer a comment.

There is no such thing as time dilation. However we can have ticking dilation.  The true ticking rate of a clock anywhere anytime depends on the true speed of light for the clock (ie for the guy).  The speed of light has four aspects.

(1) The SOL in the aether (c') depends on the nearness of mass because all mass (kg) always gives em radiation, which slows the SOL c down to c'.  LLC & LTD depend on the true SOL in the guy's frame, ie length & ticking are affected.

(2) The SOL in the aether (c") depends on the amount of em radiation from non-mass sources, ie due to electric effects, the em radiation slows the SOL c' down to c". Hencely length & ticking are affected.

(3) The SOL depends on the aetherwind (V) blowing throo the clock (guy), ie the SOL is  c"+V or c"-V. Hencely length & ticking are affected.

(4) The apparent SOL for the guy depends on the effect of Lorentz Length Contraction & Lorentz Ticking Dilation on the measuring rods & clocks in the possession of the guy. Luckily for us & the guy the LLC & LTD factors always result in all guys always apparently perceiving the true SOL (ie c) & hencely true length & true ticking, because of an illusion, because his rods & clocks are affected by the same c" & V as affects the SOL (& affects length & ticking).  Note that Einstein too reckons that all guys always perceive the true SOL (ie c) but for other (silly) Einsteinian SR reasons. However i think that GR contradicts this (see (7)).

(5) Any artificial g due to say spinning of the meteor does have an effect on the true SOL & hencely on the true length & the true ticking, but only because this causes a centrifuging of aether (aether is sucked in towards the center of spin).  The speed of the inflow affects the aforementioned V in (3), hencely u can count it as being a part of (3) or if u like u can call it (5). But (4) applies here too, ie the apparent perceived SOL length & ticking are the same as the true due to an illusion.

(6) So the Aetheristic answer (the true answer) is that all guys everywhere perceive that all clocks apparently tick at the same rate no matter where they are or what they are doing, as long as the  guy & clock keep close together.

(7) The Einsteinian (silly) answer is not the same. Einsteinologists say that according to SR all clocks in any one frame tick at the same rate, but, in an accelerating frame due to GR the guy will perceive that his clock ticks at a different rate. I hope i got that right. However this contradicts what halc said above. Praps halc can explain where i am wrong.

I have to point out that the Aetheric true ticking rate is almost certainly different to the Einsteinian true ticking rate.  The Aetheric true ticking rate is difficult if not impossible to calculate. Firstly u need to know the velocity of the aetherwind (yes velocity)(no, speed is not good enough). Secondly we dont have a good equation for (5).
The Einsteinian true ticking rate is according to SR easier to calculate, the relative velocity & relative speed being zero kmps, but the SR theory is wrong, & the true ticking rate is therefore wrong.  And if GR is involved then it is even wronger (& GR is of course involved, ie all meteors have mass, & mass affects GR, & GR affects ticking).
Title: Re: time dilation in artificial gravity
Post by: Halc on 30/01/2019 13:47:55
according to SR all clocks in any one frame tick at the same rate, but, in an accelerating frame due to GR the guy will perceive that his clock ticks at a different rate.
This is wrong.  His own clock will be perceived to tick at its normal rate in any frame. In an accelerated frame, as with any frame, an observer will perceive other clocks (ones not in the same frame) to be dilated one way or the other.  In particular for accelerated frames, inertial clocks in the direction of acceleration run faster, and ones behind slower, or even backwards.
This is true even of multiple clocks in a rigid ship, all accelerating with the ship.  Therefore clocks at either end of an accelerating ship are not in similar accelerating reference frames.

There are balance points, so a clock orbiting at an altitude of 3178 km will stay in sync with a clock on the ground, despite the two clocks being stationary in two very different reference frames.
Title: Re: time dilation in artificial gravity
Post by: mad aetherist on 30/01/2019 14:09:59
according to SR all clocks in any one frame tick at the same rate, but, in an accelerating frame due to GR the guy will perceive that his clock ticks at a different rate.
In an accelerated frame, as with any frame, an observer will perceive other clocks (ones not in the same accelerated frame) to be dilated one way or the other.  In particular, clocks in the direction of acceleration appear to run faster, and ones behind slower, or even backwards.
This is true even of multiple clocks in a rigid ship, all accelerating with the ship.  Therefore clocks at either end of an accelerating ship are not in similar accelerating reference frames.

There are balance points, so a clock orbiting at an altitude of 3178 km will stay in sync with a clock on the ground, despite the two clocks being stationary in two very different reference frames.
So, praps trevorjohnson32 should have specified where the guy was situated on the accelerating meteor. I think that there are a number of possible Einsteinian combinations for guys on the accelerating meteor.
(a) All clocks have the same true ticking rate.
(b) All clocks have a different true ticking rate.
(c) All clocks have the same apparent ticking rate.
(d) All clocks have a different apparent ticking rate.
Praps the concept of having a true ticking rate is not consistent with SR & GR. Praps all that SR & GR have is apparent ticking rates.

It is interesting that in SR all other clocks in all other frame will all appear to be ticking slower.  But that in GR with accelerating frames some other clocks can appear to be ticking faster, & that this not only applies to clocks in other frames but it also applies to clocks in your frame (eg on your meteor).

A clock orbiting at 3178 km will stay in synch with a clock on the ground.  Does that depend on direction of orbit?
What about lots of clocks sitting on a meteor orbiting at 3178 km?  Compared to the clock on the ground & also compared to each other.
Title: Re: time dilation in artificial gravity
Post by: Halc on 30/01/2019 14:34:28
I think that there are a number of possible Einsteinian combinations for guys on the accelerating meteor.
(a) All clocks have the same true ticking rate.
(b) All clocks have a different true ticking rate.
(c) All clocks have the same apparent true ticking rate.
(d) All clocks have a different apparent ticking rate.
(e) the concept of having a true ticking rate is not consistent with SR & GR.
(f) all that SR & GR have is apparent ticking rates.
I would pick (e).  You didn't suggest (g) all clocks run at rates relative to each other.
It is the theory of relativity after all.

Quote
It is interesting that in SR all other clocks in all other frame will all appear to be ticking slower.
I edited out 'appear to' from my post.  An inertial clock coming towards inertial-me will run slower in my frame because it is moving, but will appear to run faster due to Doppler effects.

Quote
But that in GR with accelerating frames some other clocks can appear to be ticking faster, & that this not only applies to clocks in other frames but it also applies to clocks in your frame (eg on your meteor).
GR does not state this.  A clock in the presence of an observer will run at a fixed normal rate relative to that observer, regardless of speed or acceleration of the pair.  The principle of relativity demands this.

Quote
A clock orbiting at 3178 km will stay in synch with a clock on the ground.  Does that depend on direction of orbit?
No.
Title: Re: time dilation in artificial gravity
Post by: mad aetherist on 30/01/2019 22:32:38
I think that there are a number of possible Einsteinian combinations for guys on the accelerating meteor.
(a) All clocks have the same true ticking rate.
(b) All clocks have a different true ticking rate.
(c) All clocks have the same apparent true ticking rate.
(d) All clocks have a different apparent ticking rate.
(e) the concept of having a true ticking rate is not consistent with SR & GR.
(f) all that SR & GR have is apparent ticking rates.
I would pick (e).  You didn't suggest (g) all clocks run at rates relative to each other. It is the theory of relativity after all.
Yes its the same with aether, aether relativity (neoLorentz Relativity) & Einsteinian relativity agree to about the 13th decimal at sensible speeds.
Quote
It is interesting that in SR all other clocks in all other frames will all appear to be ticking slower.
I edited out 'appear to' from my post.  An inertial clock coming towards inertial-me will run slower in my frame because it is moving, but will appear to run faster due to Doppler effects.
In air the sound-Doppler depends on V the vel of the train & v the vel of the ear & W the velocity of the wind & M the max speed of sound in still air. In aether the photon-Doppler is exactly the same, the max speed of a photon in still aether being c.  Einsteinian-Doppler i think only recognizes V+-v (& c is superfluous praps). A kind of Newtonian emission-Doppler is praps in a way similar to Einsteinian-Doppler, it praps depends on V+-v, & there is no such thing as c (in Newton's era).
Quote
But that in GR with accelerating frames some other clocks can appear to be ticking faster, & that this not only applies to clocks in other frames but it also applies to clocks in your frame (eg on your meteor).
GR does not state this.  A clock in the presence of an observer will run at a fixed normal rate relative to that observer, regardless of speed or acceleration of the pair.  The principle of relativity demands this.
Yes i thort so. So in regard to perceived ticking, neoLorentz perceived ticking & Einsteinian perceived ticking agree to more than the 100th decimal. Whereas neoLorentz true ticking agrees with Einsteinian true ticking to say the 13th decimal at sensible speeds, partly because there is no such thing as Einsteinian true ticking (ie true ticking & perceived ticking are the same thing).
Quote
A clock orbiting at 3178 km will stay in synch with a clock on the ground.  Does that depend on direction of orbit?
No.
Does the escape vel at 3178 km equal the orbital vel?
However splitting hairs the ground can be spinning at up to +- 0.4 kmps, which could make a small diff.
Title: Re: time dilation in artificial gravity
Post by: Halc on 30/01/2019 22:57:27
Does the escape vel at 3178 km equal the orbital vel?
No, if escape velocity was that speed, the thing there would escape, not orbit.  Escape velocity is greater than orbital velocity at any altitude.
Quote
However splitting hairs the ground can be spinning at up to +- 0.4 kmps, which could make a small diff.
One can always drop orbital radius a tiny bit to account for that, or put the ground clock at one of the poles.
Title: Re: time dilation in artificial gravity
Post by: Zer0 on 01/02/2019 20:38:17
I alwyz thought d Aether theory wz a fantastic explanatn 2 unknowns of d Universe...
Praps I shud think again.

Just a litl clarificatn required...
If I sit on top of a rocket
🚀(yeaa itz my rockt, I'll sit wherevr I want)
N accelerate uptil d speed of lite
💡💨(use xcess imaginatn)
Irrespective of any other observers, watching me from any angle...I Will NOT xperience any time dilation at all, rite???

Wat bout d time wen I'm accelerating, still nuthin?

A constant speed, nuthin much happening...but wat abt d accelerating part?
D clock wud b in my hands, so me, d clock n d rocket all muvin or rather accelerating at d same rate, soo no dilation correct?

Title: Re: time dilation in artificial gravity
Post by: mad aetherist on 01/02/2019 21:01:26
I alwyz thought d Aether theory wz a fantastic explanatn 2 unknowns of d Universe...
Praps I shud think again.

Just a litl clarificatn required...
If I sit on top of a rocket
🚀(yeaa itz my rockt, I'll sit wherevr I want)
N accelerate uptil d speed of lite
💡💨(use xcess imaginatn)
Irrespective of any other observers, watching me from any angle...I Will NOT xperience any time dilation at all, rite???

Wat bout d time wen I'm accelerating, still nuthin?

A constant speed, nuthin much happening...but wat abt d accelerating part?
D clock wud b in my hands, so me, d clock n d rocket all muvin or rather accelerating at d same rate, soo no dilation correct?
According to aether theory your own rate of ticking always appears & feels the same, ie constant, no matter what u do. It doesnt matter whether u are running jumping or standing still. Likewize your watch (depending a bit on what sort of watch-clock u have).
And re the Einsteinian SR & GR answer (these guys dont believe in aether) i get the impression that they would agree with the above aether answer.

Where the aetherists & Einsteinologists differ is that aetherists believe that an observer sitting in the rest frame (aetherwind is zero kmps) will see the true ticking rate of u & your watch-clock.  However aetherists also believe that because of neoLorentz Ticking Dilation slowing your inner rate of ticking & slowing your watch-clock's rate of ticking then u will nonetheless see & feel the true rate of ticking because neoLorentz Ticking Dilation affects both perceived ticking & true ticking equally.

Einsteinologists dont believe in any aether or in any aether rest frame or in any absolute frame or in any preferred frame.  They reckon that Time Dilation is simply due to relative speed, hencely if u & your watch are moving at the same speed, & accelerating at the same speeds, & slowing at the same speeds, then at all times the rate of time is the same, & your own sense of time is the same. Note that i was careful not to say ticking here, Einsteinologists dont talk of ticking they talk of time.

Now i have to point out a problem for Einsteinologists.  The above only applies to people with one brain.  If u had two heads & if u were accelerating or slowing then u would feel two different rates of ticking, because as Halc has pointed out clocks in different locations on an accelerating meteor run at different rates.
Hmmmmm -- in which case i need to go back & edit my comments re the Einsteinian watch on your wrist. Because the watch is not in the same location as your head then it will tick different during acceleration.  Ok here is an idea, wear the watch on a headband.  Problem solved.
Title: Re: time dilation in artificial gravity
Post by: Halc on 02/02/2019 22:49:05
Where the aetherists & Einsteinologists differ is that aetherists believe that an observer sitting in the rest frame (aetherwind is zero kmps) will see the true ticking rate of u & your watch-clock.
This actually isn't very difficult to falsify.  Take two clocks, both stationary, but one inside a dense hollow transparent mass, and the other not.  The one inside the mass will appear to tick slower than the outside one, to both observers, and yet both are stationary with zero aetherwind.  They can't both be ticking at the true rate if they run at different rates.

Not one aetherist has managed to compute approximately how dilated GMT time is, which seems to be a standard despite it being in a varying gravitational field and ever changing absolute velocity.
Earth spins at different angular rates depending on how deep in the gravitational field it is at a particular radius.  It is a clock after all.  So I ask, how long does it really take, in true time, for Earth to make one revolution?  GMT says it takes 23:56:04 at sea level, or maybe in Greenwich which is ~46 meters higher.  What does the aetherist say?
Title: Re: time dilation in artificial gravity
Post by: mad aetherist on 02/02/2019 23:36:19
Where the aetherists & Einsteinologists differ is that aetherists believe that an observer sitting in the rest frame (aetherwind is zero kmps) will see the true ticking rate of u & your watch-clock.
This actually isn't very difficult to falsify.  Take two clocks, both stationary, but one inside a dense hollow transparent mass, and the other not.  The one inside the mass will appear to tick slower than the outside one, to both observers, and yet both are stationary with zero aetherwind.  They can't both be ticking at the true rate if they run at different rates.
Is this a kind of Hammar-X?  In aether theory it doesnt matter if the aetherwind is zero or not, the two clocks will tick at the same rate as each other, & to two observers the ticking will be perceived to be at the true rate (ie as if the clocks are in zero wind)(even if it aint zero).  But depending on the exact locations & the exact nature of (lets call it) the pipe, then the tickings might be different, & might be seen to be different.
I reckon that the clock inside the pipe will tick slower, due to the nearness of mass. The SOL inside the pipe is slower, due to the nearness of mass, hencely gamma is larger, hencely the TD is larger, hencely ticking is slower.

But i see a problem for me. U have cunningly specified that the wind is zero. If the wind is non-zero then it is easy to insert the reduced speed of light c' into the equation for gamma in place of the usual c.  But if  the wind is zero then V is zero & V/c' is zero/zero which doesnt compute -- if i say that V/c' is zero (0) then gamma becomes 1.000 000 (ie the reduced speed of light in the pipe does not affect the ticking of the clock in the pipe)(contrary to my theory) -- if i say that V/c'  is 1 then gamma involves the square root of zero (cant be done).  Very cunning, u knew that i couldnt resist a Hammaresque-X dangled in front of me. Thinking.  I will be back.
Title: Re: time dilation in artificial gravity
Post by: mad aetherist on 03/02/2019 00:06:29
Where the aetherists & Einsteinologists differ is that aetherists believe that an observer sitting in the rest frame (aetherwind is zero kmps) will see the true ticking rate of u & your watch-clock.
Not one aetherist has managed to compute approximately how dilated GMT time is, which seems to be a standard despite it being in a varying gravitational field and ever changing absolute velocity.
Earth spins at different angular rates depending on how deep in the gravitational field it is at a particular radius.  It is a clock after all.  So I ask, how long does it really take, in true time, for Earth to make one revolution?  GMT says it takes 23:56:04 at sea level, or maybe in Greenwich which is ~46 meters higher.  What does the aetherist say?
I am thinking that elevation doesnt make any difference to Greenwich time.  When a certain star directly overhead crosses their crosshair then that marks the start-end of a sidereal day.  And elevation doesnt affect that.
However we know that (i) the Earth has a wobbly spin (the spin aint constant), & (ii) the G telescope vertical plumb line doesnt allways point to the same spot in Earth (or more correctly it never points to the same spot), & (iii) the light coming from the star suffers up to say 21 arcsec of aberration in the telescope depending on the time of year (due to Earth's 30 kmps orbit)(& 0.4 kmps spin).
Hencely G will have a problem calibrating the ticking of their clock.  They will have to use some sort of average over lots of days.
And then we have the problem of synchronizing other identical clocks at other locations.  As u say the ticking of every clock on Earth (including at G) will change continuously, & the ticking of every clock will be different to every other clock all the time.

The dilation of time or true time at G is not a problem.  Firstly there is no such thing as time, so there is no such thing as true time, & no such thing as dilation of true time. Secondly, eh, oh, hmmm -- there is no secondly.

What we have is the present instant of time, & that instant is the same instant over the whole of the universe.
What is a problem is the dilation of ticking, ticking is never constant, it is affected by elevation, the Moon, time of year, etc etc.
Another problem is the difficulty of synchronizing clocks.  Synchronizing must be done using photons, which travel at c or c' or c", we dont know what the speed of photons is, i mean it changes all the time in any one location, & at any instant is different at different locations.

All of these complications boil down to two simple things, (1) the speed of the aetherwind (V) blowing throo the clocks, this wind varies over time, & is different at every location & elevation, & (2) the speed of light (c or c' or c") which too continuously varies with time & location.

Just to clarify.  Once a clock has been calibrated then it will tick ok anywhere anytime, ie it will be ok for any lab experiment if the experiment is done in that lab near that clock & at the same elevation as that clock.  Except that temperature & air pressure & humidity etc affect the ticking (but these can be calibrated & measured & allowed for well enuff).  The problems arise when the experiment involves other clocks at other locations.

Anyhow u are on 506 & i am on 429 & i reckon that i should overtake u in a month or so, in the meantime i will shadow u like an America's Cup yacht & over-reply over all of your replies --- HHAHAHAH HHHAAAAAHA HAAHAAAAAHHHHHAAAHAH HAAAAAAAA.
Title: Re: time dilation in artificial gravity
Post by: Halc on 03/02/2019 02:47:56
I am thinking that elevation doesnt make any difference to Greenwich time.  When a certain star directly overhead crosses their crosshair then that marks the start-end of a sidereal day.  And elevation doesnt affect that.
Of course elevation affects that.  When I'm asking about the true ticking rate, I mean what rate would a stationary clock run at with all the (negative) elevation taken away?  If elevation had no effect, then GMT would simply be off by what ever objective speed it had, which varies from one moment to the next since it is always accelerating.  It has some speed, but not very much of it, so it would barely be off true.

Quote
However we know that (i) the Earth has ... 30 kmps orbit)(& 0.4 kmps spin).
Heh...   That means the definition of a second (some time ago) would be different if Greenwich was at the equator.  Fun fact.  It isn't based on Earth's spin anymore anyway since it isn't constant, but the standard was based on the mean spin rate back when the standard was put in place.  The spin is slowing after all, and we can't keep redefining the second.
All this has trivial effect on how dilated GMT is.

Quote
Hencely G will have a problem calibrating the ticking of their clock.  They will have to use some sort of average over lots of days.
I already said to do that in my post.  GMT is an average after all.

Quote
And then we have the problem of synchronizing other identical clocks at other locations.
Nope.  I'm concerned only with GMT and true time.  I care not what the other clocks say.  I asked what percentage of true time GMT represents.  What is the true tick rate of a GMT clock?

Quote
Firstly there is no such thing as time, so there is no such thing as true time, & no such thing as dilation of true time. Secondly, eh, oh, hmmm -- there is no secondly.
You go on and on about true time where the aetherwind is zero, and all of a sudden there is no such thing as true time?  Sounds like you think your own view is wrong.
Anyway, this is kind of the answer I expected.

Quote
What is a problem is the dilation of ticking, ticking is never constant, it is affected by elevation, the Moon, time of year, etc etc.
Yes.  I'm asking how much an Earth clock's ticking is slowed by all those effects. How old is the universe, really?  The 13.8 billion year figure is measured by the Earth clock, which ticks slow, so the universe must be older than that.

Quote
Another problem is the difficulty of synchronizing clocks.
...
The problems arise when the experiment involves other clocks at other locations.
I have only the one clock, and no need to synchronize it to anything.  This is not a problem.

Quote
Anyhow u are on 506 & i am on 429 & i reckon that i should overtake u in a month or so,
You're considering a post count to be a race? How very pathetic. Be my guest and pass me by on that.
But I notice you did not answer my question.  You did a big post of evasions, but gave no attempt at an answer.
You'd think you could google it, but I tried that and failed to word my query correctly.  Not even the usual denial sites seem to venture a figure for it.  They all have an absolute speed, but not an absolute time.
Title: Re: time dilation in artificial gravity
Post by: mad aetherist on 03/02/2019 03:23:39
I am thinking that elevation doesnt make any difference to Greenwich time.  When a certain star directly overhead crosses their crosshair then that marks the start-end of a sidereal day.  And elevation doesnt affect that.
Of course elevation affects that.  When I'm asking about the true ticking rate, I mean what rate would a stationary clock run at with all the (negative) elevation taken away?  If elevation had no effect, then GMT would simply be off by what ever objective speed it had, which varies from one moment to the next since it is always accelerating.  It has some speed, but not very much of it, so it would barely be off true.
I am surprised that u didnt recognize that i was talking about a sidereal day on Earth, which can only be measured by a star observation.
Quote
However we know that (i) the Earth has ... 30 kmps orbit)(& 0.4 kmps spin).
Heh...   That means the definition of a second (some time ago) would be different if Greenwich was at the equator.  Fun fact.  It isn't based on Earth's spin anymore anyway since it isn't constant, but the standard was based on the mean spin rate back when the standard was put in place.  The spin is slowing after all, and we can't keep redefining the second. All this has trivial effect on how dilated GMT is.
U seem to be agreeing with everything i said. Re the equator, u are mistaken.
Quote
Hencely G will have a problem calibrating the ticking of their clock.  They will have to use some sort of average over lots of days.
I already said to do that in my post.  GMT is an average after all.
Quote
And then we have the problem of synchronizing other identical clocks at other locations.
Nope.  I'm concerned only with GMT and true time.  I care not what the other clocks say.  I asked what percentage of true time GMT represents.  What is the true tick rate of a GMT clock?
I dont see the problem.  If G have decided to nominate-calculate a ticking rate for their clock then they can emit an hourly signal or something.  If they are aware of certain systemic cyclical changes in ticking then if they want they can make the needed corrections so that their signals are truer.  In a sense there is no such thing as a true GMT, ie it is what they say it is.
Quote
Firstly there is no such thing as time, so there is no such thing as true time, & no such thing as dilation of true time. Secondly, eh, oh, hmmm -- there is no secondly.
You go on and on about true time where the aetherwind is zero, and all of a sudden there is no such thing as true time?  Sounds like you think your own view is wrong. Anyway, this is kind of the answer I expected.
Show me where i mention true time. I mention true ticking. There is no such thing as time.
Quote
What is a problem is the dilation of ticking, ticking is never constant, it is affected by elevation, the Moon, time of year, etc etc.
Yes.  I'm asking how much an Earth clock's ticking is slowed by all those effects. How old is the universe, really?  The 13.8 billion year figure is measured by the Earth clock, which ticks slow, so the universe must be older than that.
Firstly the universe does not have an age, it has been around for ever.
The Earth's perceived ticking never changes (even if true ticking changes), therefore any estimates measured in Earth years does not need any correcting or calibration for true ticking.
However it would be interesting to see how they estimate the age of anything.  I guess that they might use the number of orbits of an electron in a hydrogen atom or something.  Which would be a problem for the period before atoms existed.  Its all too silly.
Quote
Another problem is the difficulty of synchronizing clocks. The problems arise when the experiment involves other clocks at other locations.
I have only the one clock, and no need to synchronize it to anything.  This is not a problem.
Quote
Anyhow u are on 506 & i am on 429 & i reckon that i should overtake u in a month or so,
You're considering a post count to be a race? How very pathetic. Be my guest and pass me by on that.
But I notice you did not answer my question.  You did a big post of evasions, but gave no attempt at an answer.
You'd think you could google it, but I tried that and failed to word my query correctly.  Not even the usual denial sites seem to venture a figure for it.  They all have an absolute speed, but not an absolute time.
There is no such thing as absolute time.  But its ok to talk of age or elapsed time or time of starting or finishing etc, all based on tickings.
Title: Re: time dilation in artificial gravity
Post by: Halc on 03/02/2019 05:36:38
The Earth's perceived ticking never changes (even if true ticking changes)
How can true ticking be true if it changes?  A clock that ticks at the true rate should never read the wrong time, and should never need to be synced with anything because it can never get out of sync with other clocks that tick at that rate.  I'm asking how long the sidereal day is as measured by such a clock.

Quote
therefore any estimates measured in Earth years does not need any correcting or calibration for true ticking.
So Earth clocks (despite being neither stationary nor having zero aeitherwind) tick at the true rate?  If you're not saying that, I don't know what you're trying to convey when saying that Earth measurements need no correcting.

Quote
But its ok to talk of age or elapsed time or time of starting or finishing etc, all based on tickings.
OK,  based on true tickings, how much time elapses during one Earth rotation?

Apparently you will not attempt an answer unless I use approved terminology to ask the question.
Title: Re: time dilation in artificial gravity
Post by: Zer0 on 03/02/2019 16:22:37
lol

praps its just futile askin u questns n xpctin a straight rply

😝

PS - a bit stuck up on 13.8b is not d real age of d Uni.
Geez!
Title: Re: time dilation in artificial gravity
Post by: mad aetherist on 04/02/2019 00:04:28
The Earth's perceived ticking never changes (even if true ticking changes)
How can true ticking be true if it changes?  A clock that ticks at the true rate should never read the wrong time, and should never need to be synced with anything because it can never get out of sync with other clocks that tick at that rate.  I'm asking how long the sidereal day is as measured by such a clock.
Yes u are correct. In my aether theory a clock has a true ticking rate, it is the ticking rate when the clock has no aetherwind, & by definition that is a constant. If i said something different then i was wrong (a brain fart).

Without going back & checking i think that i can say that on some occasions when i said true ticking i should have said actual ticking, & actual ticking is true ticking by gamma.  Likewise the ticking in an observer's tickerthalamus has a true ticking rate (a constant), & at any particular time the actual ticking is true ticking by gamma.  Which all comes back to what i said that perceived ticking always equals true ticking.
Thanx for pointing that out.
Quote
therefore any estimates measured in Earth years does not need any correcting or calibration for true ticking.
So Earth clocks (despite being neither stationary nor having zero aetherwind) tick at the true rate?  If you're not saying that, I don't know what you're trying to convey when saying that Earth measurements need no correcting.
What we always have is true rate (a constant), & actual rate (true rate by gamma), & perceived rate (a constant)(if clocks-observers are close together).
The main problem in some instances is that the clocks etc are not close together, then we have hi-jinx.
Quote
But its ok to talk of age or elapsed time or time of starting or finishing etc, all based on tickings.
OK, based on true tickings, how much time elapses during one Earth rotation?
Apparently you will not attempt an answer unless I use approved terminology to ask the question.
No its ok to ask that question.
But firstly re being based on true tickings, there are of course two kinds of true tickings, both are equal, one is true ticking, the other is perceived true ticking. True ticking can never be observed, unless the observer is able to attain zero aetherwind, unlikely, as the aetherwind blowing throo Earth is 500 kmps.  Perceived ticking is a happy auto occurrence, luckily for us, otherwise physics would be Hell.
Re how much time elapses during one Earth rotation, there are three answers, (1) the time according to your clock, (2) the time according to the Greenwich clock, (3) the true time (the time indicated by (1) & (2) if (1) & (2) were perfectly accurate.  And (4) everyone on Earth will come up with a different number based on their own clock (due to ordinary error)(& due to physical changes & differences)(another kind of error).
Title: Re: time dilation in artificial gravity
Post by: mad aetherist on 04/02/2019 00:13:32
lol
Maddy, ur funy! praps its just futile askin u questns n xpctin a straight rply 😝
PS - a bit stuck up on 13.8b is not d real age of d Uni. Geez!
They say 13.8 billion years, we say for ever, an infinite number of years.  I guess it comes down to them believing in the bigbang, & we dont.
Title: Re: time dilation in artificial gravity
Post by: Halc on 04/02/2019 02:10:11
Re how much time elapses during one Earth rotation, there are three answers,
I count four, but none of them is an answer.
Quote
(1) the time according to your clock,
I don't have a clock.
Quote
(2) the time according to the Greenwich clock,
23:56:04, which is not the question I'm asking.
Quote
(3) the true time(the time indicated by (1) & (2) if (1) & (2) were perfectly accurate.
Earth is moving and is in a gravity well, so (2) ticks slow and (1) is nonexistent since I've specified no clock of mine.
Show me where i mention true time. I mention true ticking. There is no such thing as time.
Quote
And (4) everyone on Earth will come up with a different number based on their own clock (due to ordinary error)(& due to physical changes & differences)(another kind of error).
I'm not asking for any answer based on anybody's clock.  I'm asking how long it actually takes for Earth to make one revolution.  As a relativist, I cannot give an answer because I think aether is fiction and there is no absolute rate. There are only relative rates.  Any aetherist (or presentist for that matter) should be able to give an answer.  The lack of it seems to be a self-inconsistency within your view.
Title: Re: time dilation in artificial gravity
Post by: mad aetherist on 04/02/2019 02:56:22
Re how much time elapses during one Earth rotation, there are three answers,
I count four, but none of them is an answer.
Quote
(1) the time according to your clock,
I don't have a clock.
Quote
(2) the time according to the Greenwich clock,
23:56:04, which is not the question I'm asking.
Quote
(3) the true time(the time indicated by (1) & (2) if (1) & (2) were perfectly accurate.
Earth is moving and is in a gravity well, so (2) ticks slow and (1) is nonexistent since I've specified no clock of mine.
Show me where i mention true time. I mention true ticking. There is no such thing as time.
Quote
And (4) everyone on Earth will come up with a different number based on their own clock (due to ordinary error)(& due to physical changes & differences)(another kind of error).
I'm not asking for any answer based on anybody's clock.  I'm asking how long it actually takes for Earth to make one revolution.  As a relativist, I cannot give an answer because I think aether is fiction and there is no absolute rate. There are only relative rates.  Any aetherist (or presentist for that matter) should be able to give an answer.  The lack of it seems to be a self-inconsistency within your view.
When i said true time i was referring to true elapsed time, where here time means a number of ticks. True duration might be a better term.  Its shorter than true elapsed time.

I dont understand the need to nail down the true duration of a sidereal day. Or the perceived true duration (same number).  I am happy to accept a nominal duration based preferably on the standard clock, probly at Greenwich. But acknowledging that the sidereal day is never the same, & that a very accurate measurement would show.
Hencely if talking about the duration of a sidereal day i would use numbers that related to the context, i would make sure that all parties (all talkers & talkees) understood the meaning of the numbers. How many decimal places are needed?

It doesnt matter whether Earth is moving or is in a gravity well, u & i agreed a long time ago that all ticking is constant or appears to be constant no matter what, as long as the clock & lab stay together.  And this applies to both Einsteinologists & Aetherists (its one place where we agree).   So it has no affect on the true duration of a sidereal day. Except that the sidereal day is on average getting shorter every day.
Title: Re: time dilation in artificial gravity
Post by: Halc on 04/02/2019 13:23:05
I dont understand the need to nail down the true duration of a sidereal day.
Any absolute theory, including all the aether theories, assert such a rate.  Relativity theory has no such concept.  In the absence of being able to compute the rate, the aether theories are falsified.

Quote
But acknowledging that the sidereal day is never the same, & that a very accurate measurement would show.
The variance is somewhere around the 7th or 8th decimal.  I don't need an answer to that accuracy, so the mean current sidereal day length is effectively a constant, which is why I chose it.

Quote
How many decimal places are needed?
Two is fine.  For instance, a GPS satellite runs slow by 7 microseconds per day due to its speed, and fast by 45 due to being less deep in Earth's gravity well.  Net difference is 38 microseconds per day faster than a clock on the ground.  That's two digits of precision.

Quote
It doesnt matter whether Earth is moving or is in a gravity well,
It very much matters as has been empirically verified.  Your theory was falsified a century ago if you assert this.

Quote
all ticking is constant or appears to be constant no matter what, as long as the clock & lab stay together.
There is no clock and no lab.  Nobody is measuring anything since there is no absolute observer.  All these things should be computed, not measured.  If you could measure it, relativity would be falsified.

Quote
Except that the sidereal day is on average getting shorter every day.
Longer actually.  I'm talking about the current sidereal day, not the length centuries from now.

You seem to have no answer.  You seem to be mathematically impaired, but the websites should have the figure in question.  Feel free to quote somebody else's answer, but I need a link then since it could otherwise just be a guess.  Absent an answer, I think the absolutist's views (which includes those of aetherists) have been falsified.  Relativity was right all along.
Title: Re: time dilation in artificial gravity
Post by: mad aetherist on 04/02/2019 19:00:44
I dont understand the need to nail down the true duration of a sidereal day.
Any absolute theory, including all the aether theories, assert such a rate.  Relativity theory has no such concept.  In the absence of being able to compute the rate, the aether theories are falsified.

Quote
But acknowledging that the sidereal day is never the same, & that a very accurate measurement would show.
The variance is somewhere around the 7th or 8th decimal.  I don't need an answer to that accuracy, so the mean current sidereal day length is effectively a constant, which is why I chose it.

Quote
How many decimal places are needed?
Two is fine.  For instance, a GPS satellite runs slow by 7 microseconds per day due to its speed, and fast by 45 due to being less deep in Earth's gravity well.  Net difference is 38 microseconds per day faster than a clock on the ground.  That's two digits of precision.

Quote
It doesnt matter whether Earth is moving or is in a gravity well,
It very much matters as has been empirically verified.  Your theory was falsified a century ago if you assert this.

Quote
all ticking is constant or appears to be constant no matter what, as long as the clock & lab stay together.
There is no clock and no lab.  Nobody is measuring anything since there is no absolute observer.  All these things should be computed, not measured.  If you could measure it, relativity would be falsified.

Quote
Except that the sidereal day is on average getting shorter every day.
Longer actually.  I'm talking about the current sidereal day, not the length centuries from now.

You seem to have no answer.  You seem to be mathematically impaired, but the websites should have the figure in question.  Feel free to quote somebody else's answer, but I need a link then since it could otherwise just be a guess.  Absent an answer, I think the absolutist's views (which includes those of aetherists) have been falsified.  Relativity was right all along.
Nope i dont understand what u are getting at.
Title: Re: time dilation in artificial gravity
Post by: Zer0 on 08/02/2019 08:04:39
lol
Maddy, ur funy! praps its just futile askin u questns n xpctin a straight rply 😝
PS - a bit stuck up on 13.8b is not d real age of d Uni. Geez!
They say 13.8 billion years, we say for ever, an infinite number of years.  I guess it comes down to them believing in the bigbang, & we dont.

I lyk Aether alot...but...it does not help me personally in understanding d universe.
Praps I'm better off sticking wit d big bang edition.
Title: Re: time dilation in artificial gravity
Post by: mad aetherist on 08/02/2019 09:53:28
lol
Maddy, ur funy! praps its just futile askin u questns n xpctin a straight rply 😝 PS - a bit stuck up on 13.8b is not d real age of d Uni. Geez!
They say 13.8 billion years, we say for ever, an infinite number of years.  I guess it comes down to them believing in the bigbang, & we dont.
I lyk Aether alot...but...it does not help me personally in understanding d universe.Praps I'm better off sticking wit d big bang edition.✌
No i definitely wouldnt touch the bigbang with a barge pole.  Rather than the bigbang, u would be better off if u adopted creationism, much more sensible than the bigbang.
Title: Re: time dilation in artificial gravity
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/02/2019 10:07:09
Nope i dont understand what u are getting at.
Thanks for clarifying that you don't understand the idea of evidence.